Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Need a New Deal to Address the Economic Risks of Automation

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 108 posts

Re: We Need a New Deal to Address the Economic Risks of Automation

#11

Post by TheAdamAndChe »

itchyjunk wrote: post #5

I think i've read one too many articles on the "oh no, the robots will flip our burgers. Let's make burgers that's unflippable by robots so we can keep doing it." Even people who don't mind working, maybe loves working will be okay with automating things and moving on. They will have other things in their hobby list/ bucket list/ garage that they have been meaning to work on. I understand these articles are still nee…

You're assuming that this is a rising tide that will lift all boats. What I'm afraid of is that the world will be split into capital owners who own all the robots, and the perpetually poor, who can't get jobs because they've all been automated and the only jobs remaining are minimum wage "service" jobs. And that's assuming there will be enough service jobs to go around.

We're already seeing this split occur in USA. The middle class is basically gone at this point, and the majority of people are either upper-middle class or lower class. This is not a just or equal society at all right now.

Re: We Need a New Deal to Address the Economic Risks of Automation

#12

Post by peacetreefrog »

this guy needs a little more humility. as dan boudreaux writes:

"It’s called “history.” Since humans first controlled fire and carved arrows, history is a long tale of the invention and use of labor-saving techniques and devices. Domestication of oxen and horses. Pulleys. Levers. Irrigation channels. Metal saws. The printing press. Concrete. The wheel. All save labor, yet none has led to permanent increases in unemployment.

"It’s true that the pace of introducing new labor-saving techniques has magnificently quickened in the past two hundred years. This fast pace continues today. Yet still we encounter no evidence that labor-saving techniques permanently increase unemployment.

"You’ll reply “This time is different!” Perhaps, but I doubt it"

Re: We Need a New Deal to Address the Economic Risks of Automation

#13

Post by UweSchmidt »

bsmith wrote: post #9

I disagree with the author here on UBI. The root of the issue goes deeper than deciding to prop up job markets so that there is enough supply of jobs to meet the demand. Based on the arguments in the article, this can only be a temporary fix; eventually automation will take over too many jobs for every person to have one—or at the very least, human labor is a commodity that eventually becomes so cheap that the labore…

Um, yes? Being born makes you worthy of survival. Where is the ethical dilemma? Otherwise I agree with your post.

Re: We Need a New Deal to Address the Economic Risks of Automation

#14

Post by bsmith »

UweSchmidt wrote: post #13
bsmith wrote: post #9

I disagree with the author here on UBI. The root of the issue goes deeper than deciding to prop up job markets so that there is enough supply of jobs to meet the demand. Based on the arguments in the article, this can only be a temporary fix; eventually automation will take over too many jobs for every person to have one—or at the very least, human labor is a commodity that eventually becomes so cheap that the labore…

Um, yes? Being born makes you worthy of survival. Where is the ethical dilemma? Otherwise I agree with your post.

It's meant to be rhetorical; of course being born makes you worthy of survival! But what if working doesn't provide you enough sustenance? And what if you don't even have the opportunity in the first place, once the demand for human labor is low enough?

Re: We Need a New Deal to Address the Economic Risks of Automation

#15

Post by ccallebs »

UweSchmidt wrote: post #13
bsmith wrote: post #9

I disagree with the author here on UBI. The root of the issue goes deeper than deciding to prop up job markets so that there is enough supply of jobs to meet the demand. Based on the arguments in the article, this can only be a temporary fix; eventually automation will take over too many jobs for every person to have one—or at the very least, human labor is a commodity that eventually becomes so cheap that the labore…

Um, yes? Being born makes you worthy of survival. Where is the ethical dilemma? Otherwise I agree with your post.

> Um, yes?

That's easy to say with no resource scarcity.

Re: We Need a New Deal to Address the Economic Risks of Automation

#16

Post by TheAdamAndChe »

ccallebs wrote: post #15
UweSchmidt wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um, yes? Being born makes you worthy of survival. Where is the ethical dilemma? Otherwise I agree with your post.

> Um, yes? That's easy to say with no resource scarcity.

There is no resource scarcity. 6 men own as much wealth as the poorest 50% of the _planet_. This is a crisis of capitalism and wealth distribution.

Re: We Need a New Deal to Address the Economic Risks of Automation

#17

Post by itchyjunk »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #11
itchyjunk wrote: post #5

I think i've read one too many articles on the "oh no, the robots will flip our burgers. Let's make burgers that's unflippable by robots so we can keep doing it." Even people who don't mind working, maybe loves working will be okay with automating things and moving on. They will have other things in their hobby list/ bucket list/ garage that they have been meaning to work on. I understand these articles are still nee…

You're assuming that this is a rising tide that will lift all boats. What I'm afraid of is that the world will be split into capital owners who own all the robots, and the perpetually poor, who can't get jobs because they've all been automated and the only jobs remaining are minimum wage "service" jobs. And that's assuming there will be enough service jobs to go around. We're already seeing this split occur in USA. T…

No, I see your point. And its valid. But I was getting at something slightly different. I don't think the "tsunami" prophecy will come to be true over night. Speaking in terms of average rate of change would be over valuable rather than instantaneous rate of change. Ofcourse, the average might equal the instantaneous at some point if mean value theorem hold true, but just talking in terms of instant change makes it sound all doom and gloom when it's really not.

Even the Earth might not go out of orbit instantaneously if the Sun were to suddenly disappear.

Re: We Need a New Deal to Address the Economic Risks of Automation

#18

Post by devoply »

bsmith wrote: post #14
UweSchmidt wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um, yes? Being born makes you worthy of survival. Where is the ethical dilemma? Otherwise I agree with your post.

It's meant to be rhetorical; of course being born makes you worthy of survival! But what if working doesn't provide you enough sustenance? And what if you don't even have the opportunity in the first place, once the demand for human labor is low enough?

We have more than enough resources. If working does not provide enough sustenance then we need to replace the government. These are political issues not economic ones. We can solve the problem of production with automation, however the problem of distribution remains and if the government is not distributing resources to you then you need to take that government down and replace it with one that does. That ultimatum hopefully makes politicians understand that they are no longer serving their corporate overlords but the people. They have been ignoring the people so long that might get some getting used to.

Most innovation done today I would say a good 99% of what constitutes the job market is trivial and can be automated away in the next 50 years. What remains is the 1% of scientists and engineers that actually make shit happen and strive to change the game. It's fine with me if these people live like kings and the rest of us have enough resources and all the free time in the world to do whatever we want and not be encumbered by trivial work. Maybe we can bring back hunting gathering civilizations or other microcosms of civilization and ways of life.

Re: We Need a New Deal to Address the Economic Risks of Automation

#19

Post by d--b »

You don't really have to speculate. Automation is going to do to the service industry what globalization did to manufacturing. Manufacturing got "automated" away by sending work to places where labor costs next to nothing.

Did the offshoring of manufacture jobs create joblessness?

Actually I'm not sure what the answer to that is. According to statistics the US is running at full employment. According to pretty much every other source of information, regions where manufacturing used to happen are devastated by joblessness, drug addiction, and violence...

I don't know why there is such a disconnect.

Re: We Need a New Deal to Address the Economic Risks of Automation

#20

Post by pavlov »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #11
itchyjunk wrote: post #5

I think i've read one too many articles on the "oh no, the robots will flip our burgers. Let's make burgers that's unflippable by robots so we can keep doing it." Even people who don't mind working, maybe loves working will be okay with automating things and moving on. They will have other things in their hobby list/ bucket list/ garage that they have been meaning to work on. I understand these articles are still nee…

You're assuming that this is a rising tide that will lift all boats. What I'm afraid of is that the world will be split into capital owners who own all the robots, and the perpetually poor, who can't get jobs because they've all been automated and the only jobs remaining are minimum wage "service" jobs. And that's assuming there will be enough service jobs to go around. We're already seeing this split occur in USA. T…

What's wrong with service jobs? If the problem is not the nature of the work but rather the pay, then that seems solvable by various forms of wealth redistribution. Universal basic income can be a good component in that.
Post reply on HN